If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What I am curious about is what defines an "empty" calorie in your paradigm. I'd think that my fat-intensive olive oil's additional inclusions (vit E, etc) would be just as not empty as a carb-intensive white potato's inclusions (selenium, etc).

M.

It's not even a horse at this point. It's just a smelly pile of bloody pulp and viscera.

Comment

Yes, the horse was beaten into a shapeless pulp, and I'm sure there's more beating to follow. That's just how this place rolls. It doesn't mean Choco is wrong though. He maybe a little preachy, but speaking from experience, there is a lot of truth in his posts.

Comment

Mark makes the notion that the average American is a "sugar burner" and eating Primally will make you into a "fat burner." That isn't what's happening at all. The rate at which you are burning fat:glucose is always changing inside the body. The "carb flu" isn't your body becoming more "fat adapted" - it was always adapted to burning fat - it's your body adjusting to doing the same processes on less readily available energy.

"Fat burner"- fat/carbs burning ratio is moving in the fat ratio direction, that's it. So your initial statement that 'there's no such thing as fat-adapted' is false. What is going on "behind the scenes" in our bodies/cells in a different discussion. And to tell if it's OK or not (healthy or not) is yet another, completely different story. You seem to be confusing these, though.

Cut the rest- CW story again. Been there, done that- I told you more than once... I'm not going to believe that.
Side note: Ironically, at one point, you believe in CICO, at another one, you call calorie-dense ketogenic diet a "starvation mode". LOL.

Furthermore, most people that claim to have eaten a "low fat" diet around here never did. Hurrah for selective memory.

Riiight, how many times have I heard that from my doctor... 'You probably don't follow the diet correctly'. Well, many many times, until I actually kept track of my macros meticously, which turned out I consumed around 10-15% of calories from fat. Guess what? I still had HUGE appetite as was unable to lose weight. And had to eat like every 2-3 hours to feel good. Binge-ate as well.
Yes, sure I ate wheat and other grains, but also didn't eat almost any fat- like I told you above. Didn't help. Low carb did.

Isn't that funny? In terms of macro %'s, Americans eat one of the lowest carb diets on Earth. Why are we so fat and sick?

In my country, we say "There are small lies, big lies and statistics". Exactly the same colors appear on fairly thin populations of some Western European countries. Poland also seems to be more similar to the US than to China according to this map, and guess what? We're faaar thinner, to say the least. But that's not an argument at all- these statistics tell you nothing about specific person.

But what doctors say, both in Poland and in US is that you should reduce your fat intake and up your "healthy whole grain" intake. So anyone claiming to be following low-fat diet indeed follows a lower-fat-than-before diet.

Your opinion sounds very much like overweight dietitian I once met... Whenever I'd metion the official guidelines don't make sense and low fat doesn't work, she'd reply "because people don't really follow the guidelines and they should go lower on fat". I'm sorry, but that's really not valuable argument to me.
Again: I followed 10-15% calorie fat diet for 4 months. That gave me + 3 kg of body weight, no recomposition (more fat, less muscles if any...). That's all I have to say to you.

I would argue it was probably due to increased protein and vastly more micronutrients, supporting a higher TDEE at almost all times and wasn't the carbs at all. It's the fact you were eating far less empty calories and probably a lot more meat. You may have done better trading some fat for more carbs, keeping calories equal, since carbs have a higher average burn rate than fat.

Again, I'm sorry, but you're plain wrong. I ate *more* protein on high-carb than now. You can believe me or not. Also- whenever I have higher carb days now, I feel bigger appetite and sort of binge-eating. Even 2 bananas can encourage "eat a lot" mode in me for the rest of the day, for no apparent reason.
So I doubt I'd be able to keep the same number of calories- not to mention the insanity of counting them, eating really high-carb.
Again, in general, I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me with these arguments.

Michal

Comment

mikekola, you're making me laugh. You have no idea what your fat:carbs ratio you burnt was before and you don't know what it is now. Are you trying to characterize this based on percentages? At what ratio of fat:carbs are we a "fat burner" and at what ratio are we a "sugar burner?" And how can we even test those levels? You sound like you were just swindled into a timeshare and you're trying to tell everyone you know, looking for reassurance that you didn't get ripped off. It's marketing mumbo-jumbo. Don't fall for it.

Do you know what CICO is? It's the statement that you can't lose weight without burning more calories than your body metabolizes. That's it. There are no gray areas. That fact that ketogenic diets tend to slow the metabolic rate doesn't change the fact that you need a calorie deficit to lose weight. CICO doesn't say that you can't influence the "CO" portion of the equation by diet. Keto is a great way to bring the "CO" portion down, but since it suppresses hunger thanks to its metabolic mimicking of starvation, "CI" often goes down in kind. It's almost like the body is smarter than we are!

You don't know how many calories you ate before, you don't know how many calories you are eating now, you don't understand the concept of micronutrient deficiency-induced hunger, you don't have a grasp on CICO, but I'm supposed to just trust you.

Look, it's really great you've seen some success. It really is, and I'm happy for you in that regard. But you could see even more success if you drop the dogma, research some aspects of basic human physiology, lean the different function of fats, carbs and proteins in the human body and apply it using a whole-foods-centric approach. Lyle McDonald - Bodyrecomposition is a great place to start.

Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

Comment

Choco,
You accuse others of being sold on the Dogma & Marketing, yet all I see is that you're spruiking a diferent marketing model.
Your posts are littered with unsubstantiated & unqualified statments interspersed with the odd fact.
As just one example, you spruik the higher metabolic rate, suggesting higher is better.
What does this mean, heart rate of 200 & Body temp of 40°C ?
How does this vary with individuals?
Conservatism rules in the natural world and the suggestion that we would be designed to expend more energy just to eat more food so our MBR can get as high as possible does not fit, there is an optimum range that is based on efficiency, just because carb consumption pushes those numbers up in no way proves it is healthier, it may just be a functional result of carb consumption, i.e. more internal processing required, so incidental heat generated.
You are basing that entire argument on the assumption of higher MBR is healthier, your statement needs to be qualified to be relevant to anything at all.
There is a raft of such assumptions in your arguments, which tells me you're just sold on a different dogma.

BTW, my diet has always been moderate in all ways and I agree with you when you say eat healthy whole foods with a balanced approach.

"There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

Comment

Yes, the horse was beaten into a shapeless pulp, and I'm sure there's more beating to follow. That's just how this place rolls. It doesn't mean Choco is wrong though. He maybe a little preachy, but speaking from experience, there is a lot of truth in his posts.

It doesn't mean he is wrong. I believe Choco has added a lot of information, food porn, self experimentation, and the benefit of thinking hard and long on this stuff. I am glad he is here. I learn a lot from him. I appreciate his willingness to push his points and provoke discussion, sometimes heated. That is how we all grow our knowledge.

And his tone - and that of many others - is a disservice to him. It discourages active listening. It provokes a rinse and repeat reaction cycle. It gets in the way of my willingness to plough though his posts and understand.

A different offense would require less defense (or something like that).

Comment

Why do all athletes, some with millions of dollars riding on their performance, all choose carbs?

All is a pretty tall order to prove, but what do you want? Why are some athletes vegan? Why do some drive drunk? Why do many beat their wives? Why do some shoot up the club and go to jail like the jackasses they are? Why are some idiots tweeting dumb shit 24/7? With millions on the line they just MUST make all the right lifestyle decisions to emulate right? Answer those then come back to me with the "athlete" dogma to prove a point.

Comment

All is a pretty tall order to prove, but what do you want? Why are some athletes vegan? Why do some drive drunk? Why do many beat their wives? Why do some shoot up the club and go to jail like the jackasses they are? Why are some idiots tweeting dumb shit 24/7? With millions on the line they just MUST make all the right lifestyle decisions to emulate right? Answer those then come back to me with the "athlete" dogma to prove a point.

I rounded up 99% to all - my bad! You can dodge my point by comparing to silly things like tweeting but that says it all really. If carbs are an inferior fuel source .. why do MOST athletes eat carbs over fat? These are the people who put fuel to the test. If you want to answer my question and not avoid it go for it. If you think the athletic community never tried more fat and stopped because it sucked you are wrong.

I will also add you made a blanket statement that fat is a better fuel source. I am just using athletes as one example of person that this is simply not true for.

Comment

Why do people even bother posting things like this on forums? It's aggressive, narrow-minded, and solves nothing.

I didn't read this whole thread but I did read the article a couple of days ago. I respect Andrew Kim and he brings up some interesting and valid points. I don't believe that fat is a superior fuel. In my experience, I've been more likely to run on adrenaline than fat when I neglected to use sugar/carbs/glycogen for fuel for extended periods of time. It felt good for a while (read: "honeymoon phase") but it trashed my thyroid and other hormones as my metabolism suffered. There is a great distinction between a natural response and a survival response. Even using the term "adaption" lends itself to falling under the latter. Thrive > survive